[Enobarbus]

Originally Posted by smartcat

wow? No software for inventory management or supply chain management?

By the way, why doesn't IAF keep a large inventory of frequently used components for each type of aircraft? Would it be too expensive?

I was talking about 1993 and before. They did acquire sophisticated software and electronic inventories by the turn of the century. That is why I said things are much better now.

They also had such inventories back in those days as well, but in paper format. The supply chain involves large Equipment Depots to Base Repair Depots to Operational units. Apart from uniformed IAF personnel, there are all types of civilian employees ranging from PSU employees (HAL) to MoD employees. Every one of them had a different modus operandi. It was easy to get lost in the paper work.

All major organizations try to improve efficiency by minimizing inventories and by reducing equipment types and sources. But the IAF had always had a wide variety of equipment from a wide variety of sources (UK, US, USSR, France, India et al). Imagine the inefficiencies this can create in a computerless world.

Also, most of the contracts of those days had some "funny" aspects such as seemingly unrelated and useless equipment to be supplied along with the actual aircraft. For example, Pipe unions of copper, aluminum and steel of various sizes and shapes were supplied to the IAF along with the Hunters. Now how many unions would require replacement in the entire lifetime of an aircraft? I would say not more than a couple of dozens at the most. But when the Hunter was grounded, there were cratefuls of unions that filled an entire hangar, lying unused in an equipment depot . Now we will never know who ordered those and in what numbers.

I understand such inefficiencies were existing in all defense forces at that time. Even in the USA, the defense forces used to regularly scrap spares and equipment in huge numbers.

[Alfresco]

India started buying Jaguars at the fag end of their production run for the UK and France.
It was the first non-Soviet fighter that the IAF was buying after many years, the first squadron getting operationalised with Jaguars on loan from the RAF. It was a deep penetration, low flying aircraft meant to avoid the radar by flying low.
Interestingly, this also coincided with the changes happening in the country away from socialism. Maruti Udyog(a PSU) quickly shut down all pretences of developing a 'peoples car' and signed an agreement with Suzuki, the only car manufacturer willing to do so.
Tells us a lot about the direction that the country was taking.

[adneo]

Originally Posted by smartcat

SUKHOI SU-30MKI

Su-30 MKI gets aerodynamic aids in the form of canards and 3D thrust vectoring, and makes it a 'supermaneuverable' (aeronautical term) aircraft. It is the ability of the fighter aircraft to move in an unpredictable flight path. See video below -


Canards are those little wings just behind the cockpit which provide extra lift while 3D thrust vectoring nozzles adjust the direction of jet exhaust in three dimensions. 3D Thrust vectoring aids lift and also helps it turn aggressively during dogfights.

section

First of all thanks for the excellent post, have been an aviation enthusiast from my early childhood and just ran through your post while in a meeting!

While the Su 30 MKI does have thrust vectoring nozzles, its not typically what is known as 3D thrust vectoring. The engineers have been very crafty with this one. While the nozzles primarily move in a single plane i.e. upward or downward, to give it that little bit of extra edge in terms of sideways vectoring, the motion has been carved out in a slightly circular plane. As you can see from the picture where the engine is idle the nozzles are bent inwards and not flat down.
This enables the MKI perform mind blowing maneuvers like the mid flight U-turn like just spinning around. In this scenario only one of the nozzles will either go up or down fully since that would lead to a vector some angles off the vertical plane due to the circular motion.

While the Sukhoi became famous due to the Pugachev Cobra and the Kulbit maneuvers , those were possible even without vectored thrust just like in the SU 27, however anyday the presence of vectoring capabilities would make these easier or shall i say reduce the risks of losing control by enhancing the control of the flight dynamics.

However the U-turn/spin around maneuver is not possible without vectored thrust where the energy is pushing the pilot sideway in whatever limited fashion.

Now coming to real 3D thrust vectoring, the technology was demonstrated very effectively by the Mig 29 OVT platform:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai7eaDeRlDs

I am sure there are better videos to demonstrate the Mig 29 OVT's 3D nozzles and resulting maneuvering capabilities.

Basically in 3D thrust vectoring the nozzles can deflect the thrust in any direction as desired.

The only Sukhoi with 3D thrust vectoring is the SU -35 which has been recently exported to China, it will be really big bad news for the IAF if they got them with the 3D thrust vectoring nozzles. Though the IAF Sukhoi has got other benefits like the multiple Avionic suite integration from across the globe, the Chinese have been also making brisk progress and no one really knows what they are cooking. As it is a widely known fact now that their Stealth fighters were based on Intelligence leaked out of the US and Russia (F-35 and Mig 1.44 MFI). Not even the US knows the amount of intelligence which got leaked and it was acknowledged that the US underestimated the capabilities of the Chinese of turning tech details into reality.

One thing which i observed , and since i know there are many pilots and people from HAL in the forum, probably they can pitch in if they are allowed to (some maneuverability details like sustained rated of turn etc are military secrets ), while the SU 30 MKI loses altitude/gets unsettled from their flight axis while performing the mid air spin U-turn since its engine nozzle is pointed either upwards or downwards while in the extreme point of the outwardly circular curve, real 3D thrust vectoring aircraft can perform it without getting much unsettled from their flight plane as the thrust vector can be in the same plane which makes the aircraft's tail slide around.

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by adneo

The engineers have been very crafty with this one. While the nozzles primarily move in a single plane i.e. upward or downward, to give it that little bit of extra edge in terms of sideways vectoring, the motion has been carved out in a slightly circular plane.

haha, Very smart! This 30 second video confirms what you are saying -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGcy6zoFIh8

The only Sukhoi with 3D thrust vectoring is the SU -35 which has been recently exported to China, it will be really big bad news for the IAF if they got them with the 3D thrust vectoring nozzles. Though the IAF Sukhoi has got other benefits like the multiple Avionic suite integration from across the globe, the Chinese have been also making brisk progress and no one really knows what they are cooking. As it is a widely known fact now that their Stealth fighters were based on Intelligence leaked out of the US and Russia (F-35 and Mig 1.44 MFI). Not even the US knows the amount of intelligence which got leaked and it was acknowledged that the US underestimated the capabilities of the Chinese of turning tech details into reality.

The Chinese have roughly 400 Sukhoi variants (27/30/35). I have a feeling IAF picked up Su-30 MKI keeping our northern friend in mind. Meanwhile, Su-35 was picked by the Chinese for one reason only - to strip it down to its nuts and bolts, steal its technology and use it in their stealth fighters J20 and J31.

With China, Indian armed forces' response is likely to be defensive and asymmetric. I wouldn't be surprised if India's acquisition of S-400 missile air defence system is because of China's huge leap in stealth technology. Russia claims S-400 can detect and shoot down stealth fighters.

(some maneuverability details like sustained rated of turn etc are military secrets

Well, thanks to many Defence Forums filled with air force personnel world over, there are very few secrets about performance characteristics. However, one can never be sure about the accuracy of those numbers. Eg: Do a Google search for -

<aircraft name><sustained turn rate>
<aircraft name><radar cross section>

[DragonHawk]

Originally Posted by smartcat

With China, Indian armed forces' response is likely to be defensive and asymmetric. I wouldn't be surprised if India's acquisition of S-400 missile air defence system is because of China's huge leap in stealth technology. Russia claims S-400 can detect and shoot down stealth fighters.

From what I see, primary reason for China going for Su35 is for its engines. Su35 is powered by a pair of Saturn 117F engines each producing 142KN thrust. Even though it is not easy to reverse engineer a jet engine but China did it before with Guizhou WS-13 which is similar to the Klimov RD-93 which powers MiG29.

Currently J31 is powered by a modified version of WS13 producing thrust output of 100KN and J20 is powered by a AL31F producing 125KN thrust which both by far is less powerful when compared to Saturn117F. Even though China claims to be developing a new turbofan engine WS-15 with performance characteristics similar to F119 which powers F-22 Raptor, I seriously doubt it`s claim as the critical technology related to single crystal blade technology is difficult to master.

[Ricci]

The given ranges are varied and mostly include drop tanks. No way a Jaguar does 3500km on internal fuel alone, or the Mirage 2000 3300km.

MiG-21s are credited to 900km on internal fuel.
MiG-29s, 1500km on internal fuel, 2100km with centre-line drop tank.

Su-30 is the only aircraft with no drop tank capability. The Russians obviously thought it had enough range to not need drop tanks, so I suspect the true range is more than 3000km ; any case the Su-27/34 published range varies from 3500km to 4000km. All we know for certain, is that the Su-27 flew from Moscow to Paris non-stop, without inflight refuelling , whereas the early MiG-29s had to use the inboard wing stations to carry 2x drop tanks extra for the same trip.


Jaguars in IAF service are of 2 types - Jaguar IS and Jaguar IM , where the I is interdiction, s = strike and m = marine. Jaguar IS is the one with small sleek nose similar to MiG-27, with optical/IR sensor. Jaguar IM has a radome and radar, and primarily meant for anti-ship operations, with the Sea Eagle missile on its centre-line station.

Jaguars have 2 additional hardpoints - in the middle and over the wing, where they can only carry a pair of AIM-9 Sidewinders or Magic 2 short range AAMs.

Stealth coatings are quite impractical, as the USAF found out , the coatings on F-22s would wear off very soon, especially in rains.

Any coating - including paint, suffers a lot on fighter aircraft. The high speed and turbulent airflow causes a lot of friction, which wears off paint , first and foremost on leading edges of wings, tails and LERXs. Having seen fighters up close, the durability of paint is few months at best, RAM coatings don't stand a chance. BTW, it is these very areas that coatings cannot stick to, that are also the big radar reflectors.

The absence of radar on MiG-27 doesn't do it any favors in terms of being shot down by radar homing missiles because the west doesn't use any, and the Russians only have a few which are more intended to be used against AWACS - if the AWACS shuts down its radar, it might as well return home. Passive radar homing missiles aren't intended to be used against fighters.

With any kind of radar, you will always bee seen before you see (the other). It's like headlights, the amount of light that gets reflected back to you, is a mere fraction of the light you emit, and the target/object that it is reflected back from, gets a lot more of it than you do. AESA radar tries to mitigate this by spreading its emissions over many frequencies simultaneously , than a single frequency emission with very high energy. It is supposedly harder for enemy RWR to detect, but by the physics principle, the target still gets a lot more of your radar beam than you do.

The MiG-27 was intended to have the GSh-30-6 6 barrel rotary cannon, the most powerful airborne gun, but it turned out too powerful, the recoil and vibration would slow the aircraft and vibration could slow cause the jet to come loose. Eventually, they fitted it with GSh-23-6 23mm cannon instead.

It's misleading to say the MICA doesn't raise any warning to the target , any radar emission directed at you, will be picked up by RWR. The modus operandi of active radar AAMs is not that the target gets no warning - it's that it allows the firing aircraft to break away and provide only minimal course updates, until the missile itself is close enough to have its own radar be able to track the target. The benefit is in the firing aircraft being free to maneuver elsewhere, without having to "paint" the target with CW (continuous wave) illumination for radar guided missiles like the AIM-7.

MICA stands for Missile de Interceptione , de Comabte , de Autodefence , in short , it was meant to be a short range (like Magic 2) and medium range (like R530D) missile in one. The Mirage 2000 could carry 4 MICA + 2 R530D + 2 R550 Magic 2 missiles.

Russian aircraft are often criticised over poor serviceability and consequently low fleet availability. The much touted western jets aren't all that reliable either. This French paper states the Rafale's availability rate is under 48% and this is a new fighter. As aircraft age, fatigue causes more failures and hence higher maintenance requirements. See the C-130? It's hailed as one of the best, most hardy and reliable transports, and it's at 29% availability.

http://www.liberation.fr/futurs/2015...au-sol_1333006

Although, if the IAF has decided to get more of the 2000s, there would be no MRCA tender, but after long delays by India, the French didn't want much longer and closed the production line of the Mirage 2000. There as a nice article hosted at Bharat Rakshak, of a Vayu article from 1987 or so, when the newly inducted MiG-29 was flown against the Mirage 2000 - can't find it any more though. But here's an IAF - Israeli , not Indian, account of their MiG-29 experience.
http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/figh...xperience.html

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by Ricci

Jaguar IS is the one with small sleek nose similar to MiG-27, with optical/IR sensor. Jaguar IM has a radome and radar, and primarily meant for anti-ship operations, with the Sea Eagle missile on its centre-line station.

True. But with the Jags being upgraded to DARIN III standards, there will be barely any difference(externally) between the IM & IS variants. The IS & IM variants will only be indentifiable based on the serial numbers.

Jaguar IS DARIN III JS163

Originally Posted by Ricci

The MiG-27 was intended to have the GSh-30-6 6 barrel rotary cannon, the most powerful airborne gun, but it turned out too powerful, the recoil and vibration would slow the aircraft and vibration could slow cause the jet to come loose. Eventually, they fitted it with GSh-23-6 23mm cannon instead.

Among the Flogger variants in IAF service, it was the MiG-23MF & BN that had the GSh-23 23mm cannon. The MiG-27M has the GSh-30 rotary cannon.

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by Ricci

The given ranges are varied and mostly include drop tanks.

Thanks, I have updated the post. 'Ferry Range' is the aeronautical term I guess.

Su-30 is the only aircraft with no drop tank capability. The Russians obviously thought it had enough range to not need drop tanks,

Interesting philosophy. You can't dogfight and dodge missiles with drop tanks anyway.

It's misleading to say the MICA doesn't raise any warning to the target , any radar emission directed at you, will be picked up by RWR.

MICA is not just another active radar homing missile. It is a "stealth" radar homing missile, as mentioned in its documentation. Although MBDA has not explained how, it is very likely that radar transmitter on the missile does "frequency hopping" too. It is a low smoke missile too - so the Missile Approach Warning (which scans the skies for smoke trail) of the enemy aircraft is likely to warn the enemy pilot later than usual.

From the PDF file, "MICA outperforms other BVR missiles with its unique stealthy interception capability provided by its silent seeker"
http://www.mbda-systems.com/?action=...chment_id=5271

Now obviously, I'm not saying it has 100% kill probability. BVR missiles have very low kill probabilities anyway. But this is likely to perform better than your average BVR missile.

Russian aircraft are often criticised over poor serviceability and consequently low fleet availability. The much touted western jets aren't all that reliable either. This French paper states the Rafale's availability rate is under 48% and this is a new fighter.

Right. Some European countries were grumbling that Eurofighter Typhoon's serviceability was around 40%. This seems to be an issue with pretty much all new aircraft, since the production lines are busy churning out new aircraft.

[Mad Max]

Amazing read! Thank you for spending the time to document this!



Skoda VRS? hehe.. j/k

[ptushar]

Originally Posted by smartcat

Will update this thread later about Tejas, Rafale and PAK FA (T-50) later.

What an awesome thread this is, indeed.

I am eagerly awaiting the updates for the Rafale and especially the Tejas. Really want to know how Tejas compares with the western and Chinese aircrafts.

[Ironhide]

Originally Posted by smartcat

MIKOYAN MIG-27

- And now, for the bad news. Mig 27's have had a worser crash rate than even Mig 21s. Entire fleet of Mig 27s have been grounded multiple times because of "engine flame-out" issues. The lone Mig 27 lost in Kargil War too was due to engine flame-out. A former IAF pilot leaked this video of Mig 27 crashing during take-off because of engine flame-out. Since there was no ejection, it's likely that there was a pilot fatality in this incident.

- Because Mig 27 has been such a problem child in recent times, it is slowly being 'decommissioned' as newer Su 30s and Tejas roll out of HAL.

The pilot in this crash was Wing Commander Oswald de Abreu who unfortunately did not survive.

The video is a stark reminder of the risks our men and women in uniform face on a daily basis to keep our nation safe and secure.

R.I.P

[V.Narayan]

Smartcat, thank you for a truly delightful article and for raising some thought provoking questions. There is so much I want to comment on. Will do on Sunday phoorsat se (ie at leisure). Rated a well deserved 5 stars.

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Smartcat, thank you for a truly delightful article and for raising some thought provoking questions. There is so much I want to comment on. Will do on Sunday phoorsat se (ie at leisure). Rated a well deserved 5 stars.

I'm really looking forward to your views, Narayan. Also, I would like you to touch upon the probable 'doctrine' or 'philosophy' of IAF in case of a full-blown war. In other words, how does IAF intend to use the fighter aircraft at its disposal? Is it one fighter aircraft type (Eg: Su30MKI) for a particular goal (Eg: Air superiority over enemy territory) or is it likely to be a mix and match of everything?



Gentlemen, V.Narayan is our in-house Naval and Aviation expert. If you are interested in military stuff, check out his threads -

MIKOYAN MIG-25
http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/commer...air-force.html

FOLLAND GNAT
http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/commer...-page-6-a.html

HAL HF-24
http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/commer...t-fighter.html

HAWKER SEA HAWK
http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/commer...dian-navy.html

AIRCRAFTS OF INDIAN NAVY
http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/commer...-carriers.html

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by smartcat

I'm really looking forward to your views, Narayan. Also, I would like you to touch upon the probable 'doctrine' or 'philosophy' of IAF in case of a full-blown war. In other words, how does IAF intend to use the fighter aircraft at its disposal? Is it one fighter aircraft type (Eg: Su30MKI) for a particular goal (Eg: Air superiority over enemy territory) or is it likely to be a mix and match of everything?



Gentlemen, V.Narayan is our in-house Naval and Aviation expert. If you are interested in military stuff, check out his threads -

You've put me on a pedestal. Now I will really have to think and write
In a couple of days I will try and share my thoughts with the perspective of how it evolved since 1965 in the context of the cold war, dissolution of the USSR and the changes in our regional threats which lead us to where we are. Of course these will be merely my views and I am not a military man.

[sagarpadaki]

Originally Posted by Ironhide

The pilot in this crash was Wing Commander Oswald de Abreu who unfortunately did not survive .

The video is a stark reminder of the risks our men and women in uniform face on a daily basis to keep our nation safe and secure.

R.I.P

I wonder why the pilot did not eject! He had plenty of time to try to save the aircraft and eject after knowing that nothing can be done! Nearly 10 seconds. Engine flame-outs at take off are neigh impossible to recover from since there is no altitude to play with. Also there was a possibility of touchdown back on the runway since the aircraft was just meters above the ground until the moment when the nose went down!

Any idea what was the root cause of the flame out?